[atrt2] PDP - Discussion with ATRT2 14
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Aug 10 18:24:42 UTC 2013
>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, "Neuman, Jeff"
> <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com>
>CC: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>, Alice Jansen
> <alice.jansen at icann.org>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> <michele at blacknight.com>, "rickert at anwaelte.de"
> <rickert at anwaelte.de>,
> "jbladel at godaddy.com" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz
> <pdiaz at pir.org>,
> "Avri Doria" <avri at ella.com>, Marika Konings
> <marika.konings at icann.org>,
> "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>, Charla Shambley
> <charla.shambley at icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute at pir.org>
>Subject: RE: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:10:16 +0000
>Regardless of differing personal opinions regarding the PEDNR PDP,
>Jeff raises an important question as to whether the threshold for
>initiating a PDP is too low. I understand the complications in
>answering that question, but it is definitely a valid one to ask.
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 11:19 PM
>To: Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor
>Cc: Roberto Gaetano; Alice Jansen; Michele Neylon - Blacknight;
>rickert at anwaelte.de; Gomes, Chuck; jbladel at godaddy.com; Paul Diaz;
>Avri Doria; Marika Konings; Larisa B. Gurnick; Charla Shambley; Brian Cute
>Subject: Re: PDP - Discussion with ATRT2
>At 08/08/2013 09:33 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> >Some good discussions are taking place here and I wish I had the time
> >to devote to the lengthy emails. I just noticed the discussion board
> >ultimatums and although there have been some positive views expressed
> >on them, I believe that they have failed to produce anything even
> >remotely useful in policy development. In fact, they have had a much
> >worse effect than letting things play out in a working group. The VI
> >ultimatums actually in my view caused what was heading towards a
> >workable compromise to fall flat on its face and prevent that emerging
> >consensus from coming through. Worse yet, the Board resolution, which
> >was ultimately implemented, and will be in practice soon, will
> >demonstrate how bad of a job the top down decision actually was (in my
> >view). But that is a whole separate story
> > I will be happy to explain on the call exactly what happened as the
> > chair of the ATRT remembers quite well (sorry Brian).
>And this Vice Chair as well!
> >Also Alan with PEDNR although you remember what happened during the
> >PDP, what has not come out of this discussion was the fact that none of
> >the contracted parties felt the issue merited a PDP in the first place.
> >But with the incredibly small thresholds to start a PDP, the PDP began.
> >Perhaps one could argue that the PDP should never have started in the
> >first place (an argument for higher thresholds). You can't force a
> >multi stakeholder process to work when many of the stakeholder have no
> >incentive or desire to address an issue. So, it was not surprising at
> >all when the PDP dragged on and took forever to get just a small
> >outcome, and that the parties were not incented to come to a
>I do remember that well. But that just raises the question - how do
>you address a picket fence issue when the contracted party/parties
>is/are happy with the status quo? But for the record, perhaps due to
>interesting politics, the vote to initiate the PDP was unanimous
>excluding two absentee ballots that were not returned.
> >I have many other thoughts, but again a lack of time to document, so I
> >welcome the calls to discuss the issues. And by the way, I continue to
> >believe that the PDP process is not broken. And I also believe that
> >the VI process, or for that matter, and policy process related to the
> >new gTLDs are not the ones we should use to judge the PDP. Finally, we
> >cannot forget that the formal PDP is not and should not be the only way
> >for policy development in the GNSO.
>I for one do not use the term "broken". The question that I think we
>need to focus on is how to make the process work for the really
>thorny issues. And I agree with your intro. I think this is a really
>good discussion and some interesting ideas are coming out of it.
More information about the atrt2